Surface roughness evaluation of resin modified glass-ionomers polished utilizing poly(acrylic acid) gel

The Effect of Various Polishing Systems on the Surface Roughness of Two Resin Composites—An In Vitro Study

The long-term success of a composite restoration largely depends on its smoothness, which can be achieved by the appropriate polishing tools and material selection. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the surface roughness of two composite materials after the application of selected polishing systems. Filtek Ultimate (FU) and Filtek Z250 (FZ) were tested. Forty specimens of each material were prepared. After polymerization under a Mylar strip, the surface roughness of five samples from each group was measured. Subsequently, all specimens were ground by 600 grit sandpaper. The surface roughness of five samples per group was tested again. The samples from each group were randomly assigned to eight subgroups, and polished by Sof-Lex, Sof-Lex Diamond Polishing System, Super Snap, One Gloss, Astrobrush, Stainbuster, Enamel Shiny, and Jiffy Polishing System. The collected data were analyzed using the Shapiro–Wilk and Kruskal–Wallis tests. The lowest Ra coefficient after polishing is found in the Super Snap groups (FU—0.077 μm, FZ—0.085 μm). The lowest Rlr coefficient is measured in the Enamel Shiny group for FU (1.000), and for Sof-Lex, Sof-Lex Diamond Polishing System, and Jiffy Polishing Kit for FZ (1.001), and only slightly higher for Super Snap (FU—1.001, FZ—1.002). The roughest-measured surface is in the One Gloss group for FU (Ra—0.657 µm, Rlr—1.009), and Astrobrush group for FZ (Ra—0.525 μm, Rlr—0.011). Additionally, it was not confirmed that the nanoparticle material (FU) demonstrates better results than the microhybrid one (FZ). Different polishing systems produce varying surface roughness. The most effective polishing system is Super Snap. The structure of composites does not significantly affect their surface roughness after polishing.

Review: Finishing and polishing procedures of (resin-modified) glass ionomers and compomers in paediatric dentistry

BACKGROUND

A smooth surface has a beneficial effect on the aesthetic quality and longevity of a dental restoration, as well as on its biocompatibility with oral tissues. In this review studies on glass-ionomer cements (GIC), resin-modified glass-ionomer cements (RM-GIC), and compomers or polyacid-modified resin composites (PAM-C) were assessed as these are currently used in paediatric dentistry.

METHOD

Medline databases (USA National Library of Medicine) was searched using WinSpirs and Pubmed. This search used a keyword filter including dental materials, polishing procedures, and instrumentation including influencing factors.

FINDINGS

Although the literature shows different commercially available tools it seems that the ideal polishing instrumentation in paediatric dentistry for GIC and compomers is not yet on the market. Furthermore, the constant development of dental materials and polishing products impose a need for continuous scientific research.

Effect of a glaze/composite sealant on the 3-D surface roughness of esthetic restorative materials

The main goal of the current study was to evaluate the surface roughness of tooth-colored restorative materials after different finishing/polishing protocols, including a liquid polisher (BisCover, BISCO, Schaumburg, IL, USA). The restorative materials tested included two nanofilled resin composites (Filtek Supreme, 3M Dental Products, St Paul, MN, USA and Grandio, Voco, Cuxhaven, Germany), one resin-modified glass ionomer cement (Vitremer, 3M Dental Products) and one conventional glass ionomer cement (Meron Molar ART, Voco). The finishing/polishing methods were divided into five groups: G1 (compression with Mylar matrix), G2 (finishing with diamond burs), G3 (Sof-Lex, 3M Dental Products), G4 (BisCover, BISCO, after diamond burs) and G5 (BisCover after Sof-Lex). Five cylindrical specimens of each material were prepared for each group according to the manufacturer's instructions. The finishing/polishing methods were performed by a single operator in one direction to avoid variations at low speed (15,000 RPM). The surface roughness was evaluated using a 3-D scanning instrument with two parameters considered (Ra and Rz). The data was analyzed using one-way ANOVA followed by a multiple comparison Tukey's test. The results showed that BisCover (BISCO) was capable of reducing surface roughness and provided polished surfaces for all materials, enhancing smoothness over already polished surfaces (Sof-Lex, 3M Dental Products) and achieving polishing after finishing with diamond burs.

Surface roughness of glass ionomer cements indicated for atraumatic restorative treatment (ART)

The purpose of this study was to evaluate the surface roughness of four conventional chemically cured glass ionomer cements (Fuji IX, Ketac Molar, Vidrion R and Vitromolar) commonly used in atraumatic restorative treatment (ART) immediately after material preparation. Twenty specimens of each glass ionomer cement were fabricated and surface roughness was measured after material setting. The specimens were further examined under scanning electron microscopy. Data were analyzed statistically by Kruskal-Wallis test and Mann-Whitney test at 5% significance level. Two-by-two comparisons showed statistically significant difference (p<0.05) between all materials, except for Ketac Molar and Vidrion R, which had statically similar results (p>0.05). Regarding their results of surface roughness, the materials can be presented in a crescent order, as follows: Ketac Molar < Vidrion R < Fuji IX < Vitromolar. In conclusion, from the tested glass ionomer cements, Fuji IX, Ketac Molar and Vidrion R presented acceptable surface roughness after setting reaction while Vitromolar showed remarkably higher surface roughness.

Effect of polishing systems on the surface roughness of microhybrid composites

PURPOSE

This study was undertaken to examine the effect of three different polishing systems on surface roughness of five newly developed resin composites.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Three microhybrid composites (Point 4, Kerr, Orange, CA; Esthet-X, Dentsply/Caulk, Milford, DE; Vitalescence, Ultradent, South Jordan, UT, USA), one microfilled composite (Renamel Microfill, Cosmedent, Chicago, IL, USA), and one experimental microhybrid composite (FZB, Ivoclar Vivadent, Schaan, Liechtenstein) were light cured with a Mylar strip. Fifteen specimens of each composite (6 mm in diameter and 3 mm in depth) were fabricated and randomly assigned to three groups. Specimens in each group were finished with a carbide bur (16 fluted) and three polishing systems (Astropol, Ivoclar Vivadent; Diagloss, Axis Dental, Irving, TX, USA; Sof-Lex, 3M, ESPE, St. Paul, MN, USA). The average surface roughness (Ra) and the mean peak spacing (Sm) were measured with a surface profilometer after polishing. Five tracings at different locations on each specimen were made. Data were analyzed by analysis of variance.

RESULTS

For Astropol, Ra ranged from 0.10 to 0.15 microm and Sm ranged from 24 to 40 microm for the five composites; for Diagloss, Ra ranged from 0.24 to 0.34 microm and Sm from 38 to 74 pm; for Sof-Lex, Ra ranged from 0.06 to 0.10 microm and Sm ranged from 16 to 22 microm. Significant differences between materials and polishing systems were observed. Polishing systems had the most important role in determining the surface roughness of resin composites.

CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE

Of the polished systems tested, Sof-Lex discs provided the lowest roughness for polishing microfilled and microhybrid composites, and the microfilled resin composite showed the lowest roughness.

Surface roughness of composite resins after finishing and polishing

This study evaluated the effect of surface finishing methods on the average surface roughness of resin composites. Seven composites and two polishing systems were used. One hundred and twenty-six conical specimens of each material were prepared in stainless steel molds against a polyester strip. Forty-two of them remained intact and were used as controls. Each half of the remaining samples was polished with either diamond burs or diamond burs + aluminum oxide discs. The results showed no statistical difference in average surface roughness (Ra, microm) between the polyester strip and aluminum oxide discs (p > 0.05). However, finishing with diamond burs showed a statistically higher average roughness for all composites (p < 0.05). Statistical differences were detected among materials (p < 0.05) in the use of diamond burs.